Bobby Jindal’s Pursuit of the Presidency: How He Can Win

There would need to be an intensive and comprehensive two-pronged approach; first, a general/generic appeal to all those who truly want a genuine alternative for the future political course of this country, which includes its economic, social, cultural, and, ultimately, its moral future as well; second, there must be defensible, articulate appeals to various political coalitions that can be, generally, aligned fairly reasonably well, as to mainly noncompeting attitudes or viewpoints, which can be then gathered together, in a suitable and usable manner, for the desired political ends.

Strategic Two-Tier Orientation Advocated

Thus, the projected campaign must be intelligently structured for an explicitly two-tier approach toward the American electorate, meaning, especially, those voters most likely to want to vote for Bobby Jindal or, at least, would be mainly disinclined, in effect, to vote against him.  Of course, all the heavy details, with logical ramifications and implications of effect, will have to be properly and thoroughly fleshed out, in an informed manner, by political officials, campaign strategists, and the associated operatives.

The first level of the campaign appeal, its most pragmatic tack, is to be toward the American people, in general, in basic terms of their being citizens of this country, not as ideologically subdivided specimens according to race, religion, age, gender, etc.   The second tier will be the selective and more crucial outreach to various groups or coalitions among the citizenry who would be either fundamentally or, at least, generally in favor of the candidacy of Jindal; this latter coalition would be composed of the following, briefly delineated categories.

First and foremost, the generality of conservatives, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, have to be considered; this is supremely critical, however, to the initial understanding and right comprehension of what is integrally meant; not all those carelessly denominated simply as being “conservative Republicans” are, thus, truly either hardcore or mainstream conservatives.

And, moreover, a conservative Republican, in fact, is not necessarily a conservative voter, which cannot be critically stressed enough; therefore, the shallow thinking that these people are just synonymous (or somehow interchangeable) with most conservatives is a terrible and unneeded misconception that has, in fact, destroyed many a campaign for the presidency, due to the basic ignorance of the fundamental and irrefutable truth involved. 

Many conservative Republicans would never, for a variety of reasons, vote for Jindal; therefore, the real appeal must be mainly centered around and through those numbers of voters knowingly deemed to be actual conservatives, the conservative voters; this is, practically speaking, as to their revealed main attitudes, basic inclinations, core principles, or any other such possible distinguishing characteristics shown through many (carefully taken and properly analyzed) public opinion polls, voter surveys, voter exit polls, etc.

They are, therefore, essentially the central part of the broad campaign coalition to be soundly constructed.  Then, some conservative Republicans, when Jindal appears to really have a good chance to get the nomination, will rally to his cause since they do want to pick the winner, not because of their supposed conservative politics, which point must be clearly kept in mind, as both a cold and rational political calculation.  

To better develop and then appropriately keep the essential conservative wing of the coalition, however, Jindal must both seamlessly and effectively demonstrate a solid backbone in terms of not retreating on any of the vast majority of conservative principles, e. g., limited government, free-market economics, strong national defense, etc.  A single major crack in that requisite backbone will, therefore, be early detected; and, he will, certainly, pay the price of ultimate defeat at the polls, especially in the general election, if not always before that time.

Time and again, when the electorate is offered the false choice between a Republican running as a Democrat versus a real Democrat, the vast majority of the voters have always voted for the Democratic candidate for the presidency; thus, e. g., Richard Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy; Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy, the second time George (the father) ran, he lost to Bill Clinton; Bob Dole lost to Clinton; George (the son) just barely won both times; and, John McCain, of course, lost to Barack Hussein Obama. 

Jindal must not appear to be either just a liberal, centrist, or moderate Republican; this would be completely fatal to his campaign; he had better stay on the basic political right both during and after his nomination, unless he wishes to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, which is not politically inconceivable. 

Inglorious defeat was, in empirical fact, fully embraced by Nixon (against JFK), Ford, George (the senior), Dole, and McCain.  These now rather prominent political lessons, which had historically happened, ought to be truly obvious; and, yet, much evident gross stupidity, as has been so noted, prevails mightily, meaning in set explicit terms of American electoral politics; the truth in politics ever is stranger than fiction, which often makes it harder to believe.

But, political alignments do exist and people are willing to vote for those candidates who, they hope, best represent them, though, usually, in a manner that may not be too close to an ideal, which includes “organizing” people into usable groups; this is for political action regarding, of course, elections, local and otherwise in context.

Religious Conservatives and Other Coalitions

The next coalition to be brought into the broader electoral coalition to be assembled must logically include the religious conservatives, encompassing traditionalist-conservative Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants, some Evangelicals, conservative Lutherans, etc. who are mainly active in politics for the greater sake of social, cultural, and, especially, moral values, such as, for instance, the right-to-life cause. 

Next, an appeal must be made to the supporters of free-market economics, including the rightwing, not leftwing, libertarians and others who see themselves as primarily as being among the so-called economic conservatives; they realize that modern American conservatism is rightly friendly to the idea that individual merit and entrepreneurship, innovation and invention, risk and investment, ought to be financially rewarded with profits. 

A much smaller part of the winning coalition are to be the social conservatives who are not, in point of fact, necessarily all the same as the aforementioned religious conservatives; many agnostics, some atheists, and undifferentiated people still do generally view themselves as being a type of conservative regarding basic social, economic, and cultural sanity for ethical or (nonreligious) moral reasons. 

In other words, the broad outreach to be rationally going on, for this campaign, must significantly extend much further than just the Republican Party faithful.  Many disaffected Democrats, neo-Reagan Democrats, and independents are, in addition, fair game for the political process here being succinctly contemplated. 

Democrats and Moderates Considered

Some moderate-toward-conservative Democrats could be reasonably persuaded that Jindal can correct the perceived, by them, various extreme errors and unfortunate excesses of Obama; these many observed failures of an interventionist regime, significantly greater than those of Jimmy Carter, will lead to the disliked economic disintegration of the country; today, however, the old-style Reagan Democrats almost clearly do not exist as such because, among other major reasons, Ronald Reagan’s appeal, to the vast majority of them, was more visceral and/or personal than just truly heavily principled. 

What can be fairly noted these days are the neo-Reagan Democrats, seen among mostly the younger people, whose parents and/or relatives may have voted for him; also, the current young generation, meaning among this selected group of voters, are still reasonably open to some persuasion that someone better suited to satisfying the true political needs for themselves and their country can and, perhaps, does exist.

Many of those called or recognized as political independents, including any of the noted social, religious, economic, etc. conservatives, must be genuinely made to know and think that they are, thus, being presented an authentic, not fake, political alternative to the Democratic Party’s candidate, most likely being Obama.  So, as briefly as possible and with much precise concision attempted, the above sketch or bare outline of the basic, broad coalition that can be formed for Bobby Jindal has been, therefore, presented for public consideration. 

It will be, in the ultimate final account, up to Jindal and his close advisors, of course, to properly decide if he so truly wishes to wisely assemble such a winning coalition that ranges from the political center to the right in terms of contemporary domestic politics; or, he can actually chose defeat, as have, in historical point of fact, many previous Republican Party candidates who have absurdly listened to the many idiotic siren voices of the (crackpot) neoconservatives, (socialist) neoliberals, and other such greatly center-left thinkers in this country. 

Among many others, for instance, the prominent, neoconservative Michael Medved had, in 2008, willingly championed John McCain’s (center-left) campaign toward a genuinely well-deserved defeat; though, of course, Medved claims that he supports conservatism and that his political hero properly ran as a true conservative; that contention is yet totally denied by those on the traditionalist right and the basic (if not the vast) majority of hard-core conservatives who disliked the man from Arizona; more than a few million did not, in fact, vote for him, as a direct consequence. 

One wonders, however, if Jindal will (irrationally) come to accept and respect advice given to him by the notably assorted neoconservatives, neoliberals, and other such greatly center-left thinkers, in this nation, whose (deliberately?) wrong recommendations had most definitely contributed to McCain’s (unneeded) loss. 

A surely moderate-centrist Republican had, thus, conducted a politically moderate campaign and was, consequently, logically defeated because of his expressed love for splendid moderation; the Louisiana Governor can win, however, if he runs an explicitly conservative campaign that then successfully brings about enough political polarization [e. g., Reagan v. Carter; Reagan v. Mondale; George (senior) v. Dukakis] to then successfully force the electorate to make a true political choice between two essentially different alternatives.  But, this still remains to be seen.

Identity Politics Rejected

In any event, Jindal should avoid ever going the ideologically squalid “identity politics” route of the Democratic Party because, among other reasons (pragmatic and otherwise), it does not really work for Republicans; appeals, therefore, ought not to be targeted toward racial, ethnic, etc. groups in a sub-divisional way of either directly or indirectly energizing antagonistic forces; this would act against the first tier strategy as noted above.

The second tier effort is, thus, meant only to stress that people are then being intellectually engaged regarding what they think are the issues as presumably informed and educated voters; identity politics, in horrid contrast, always tendentiously makes certain classes of voters the issue in and of themselves, which, upon proper examination, is definitely condescending, patronizing, and discriminatory; and, for racial groups, it is also, by definition, manifestly racist to orient political attitudes or opinions on the overt basis of a person’s particular race qua racialist identity as such.

The best Republican Party way to properly proceed is, therefore, by explicitly appealing to Americans as Americans and not by disgustingly seeking to gain attention by referring, covertly or otherwise, to such extraneous, anti-cognitive factors as, e. g., the merely coincidental color of one’s skin, which is just an accident of birth, not ever a person’s (birth) choice. 

In addition, the second level strategy is consciously aimed at seeking to naturally influence those citizens whose own prior choice predilections, as through religious, economic, etc. beliefs, have some basic kind of intensively strong, heavy, or at least moderate affinity and resonance with those of the known efforts or orientations of the Republican Party; this then logically applies, of course, to “parallel” political issues or ideas overtly supported by the party as with, e. g. the right-to-life appeal as is also so favored by the traditionalist, orthodox Roman Catholics and others who would normally consider themselves as being religious conservatives (as to political views).

This then, as another case-in-point, demonstrates the fundamental flaw of any identity politics (for Republican usage) in thinking that all or most Catholics are supposedly going to vote Republican if that party simply remains against the spread of abortion-on-demand; in fact, most Catholics, as is rather well known, do vote Democratic; and, moreover, as they have become increasingly well assimilated, both culturally and socio-economically, into the general domestic population, their main attitudes do merely reflect the majority of the more moderate-toward-liberal segments of society.

Why Conservatism Can Win

Based upon all of the prior assessments, analyses, and critical considerations, therefore, Jindal’s surest means toward attaining the presidency is to logically convince the vast majority of the political, religious, social, economic, cultural, and other possible conservatives that, without any real doubt, he and he alone substantially and fundamentally represents their true interests. 

Acting with and within such a basically united core of solid political support, therefore, many moderates (as independents) can be fairly or reasonably attracted to a body of political opinion that is coherent, consistent, and determined to win the national election; or, at the very least, other moderates can be then substantially convinced, through a united political effort that openly portrays the liberal-left as manifestly radical or ideologically extremist in orientation, that a decent and constructive, viable and non-radical, alternative exists for this nation.

Conservatism, therefore, must be and can be humanely defended and honestly promoted as being a definitely creative and viable force that can genuinely help to fairly revitalize efforts at rebuilding the devastated economy, wrecked society, degraded culture, etc., if it supports true moral and religious values for that always much needed revitalization and reconstruction; even more to the point, it would be much better if the attitudes of the traditionalist right were to guide the core movements and inspirations by opposing Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor, the always necessarily abusive iron triangle of the terrible welfare-warfare State.

Millions upon millions of Americans do not really want this country ideologically transformed into a European-style, social-market economy/socialist State where, for instance, the unemployment rate permanently remains at double digits, along with, on average, double digit inflation and interest rates, as was so empirically true, e. g., during the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

Thus, Obama, as a Fabian Socialist, seems destined to go extremely much further than Carter in unfortunately directing this nation down the harmful road toward serfdom, as was noted, long ago, by Friedrich A. von Hayek.  People will then retrogressively return to a status society versus a contract society dedicated to self-government, freedom, and liberty; the former free citizens of a free republic will, therefore, be transformed into mere ersatz subjects of the New Order.

The ugly materialism, strident secularism, crass hedonism, and, yes, ultimate nihilism of that vilely modernist or, today, postmodernist regime needs to be, prudently and profoundly, rejected by the advocacy and practice of intelligent statecraft and genuine statesmanship; thus, Jindal’s campaign for the presidency, allied to the optimistic conservatism of the opportunity society, could then have the good ability to successfully articulate and wisely advance the associated agenda; this compelling agenda is, thus, forever favoring limited government, traditional morality and culture, free-market economics (versus statist capitalism/corporate welfare), the right-to-life position, a strong national defense (versus a worldwide militaristic imperium), equal opportunity for citizens, principled rejection of the (improper) legalization of all illegal immigrants, etc.

Conclusion

Of course, someone would be critically needed on the campaign staff to both properly and carefully coordinate this (above outlined) two-tier strategy, so that neither parts of the expected grand coalition seem to have any fundamental conflicting purposes.  This chosen coordinator must understand and comprehend holistically the various forces and dynamics at work among the different parts of the assembled coalition, which itself is, of course, certainly composed of sub-coalitions seeking each to logically advance its own agenda(s).

But, regardless of other factors that are, of course, undoubtedly involved in this present (merely outlined) consideration being offered, it is adamantly contended, nonetheless, that no other kind of strategy will really work in creative and effective terms of both attracting and consolidating a basically conservative (or conservatively-oriented enough) electorate for electing Jindal; on the contrary, it is asseverated strongly that any supposedly moderate-liberal or centrist-moderate campaign will, thus, utterly fail, as have almost all others, especially more so for reputedly “conservative” Republicans. 

Jindal can, therefore, properly seek a great opportunity for true political success in pursuing the presidency, as has been so well noted, if he is, in fact, genuinely willing to seek out the cause of conservatism as the basis, the foundation, for his solid achievement through the suggested coalition politics approach.

>